deviating slightly from pure open source principles
saying that prohibiting redistribution is just “deviating slightly from pure open source principles” is like saying that a dish with a bit of meat in it is just “deviating slightly” from a vegetarian recipe.
if you saw a restaurant labeling their food as vegetarian because their dishes were based on vegetarian recipes, but had some meat added, would you say that it seems like their intentions are good?
to protect their users from scammy clones
As I said in another comment, the way free open source software projects should (and can, and do) generally do this is using trademark law. He could license it under any free software license but require derivatives to change the name to avoid misleading or confusing users. This is what Firefox and many other projects do.
TBH we’re not really into strictly following the letter of the law in the pirate community
In the video announcing the project Louis Rossmann explicitly says he intends to vigorously enforce this license. Since it is a copyright license, the only ways of actually enforcing it are to send DMCA takedowns and/or sue people for copyright infringement.
there is no single universally agreed upon definition
There is an overwhelmingly agreed-upon definition. Look at who agrees with it: opensource.org/authority/
And who doesn’t agree? Historically, a few of the giant software companies who were threatened by the free software movement thought that “open source” was a way for them to talk the talk without walking the walk. However, years ago, even they all eventually agreed about OSI’s definition and today they use terms like source-available software for their products that don’t meet it.
Today it is only misinformed people like yourself, and grifters trying to profit off of the positive perception of the term. I’m assuming Louis Rossman is in the former category too; we’ll see in the near future if he acknowledges that the FUTO license is not open source and/or relicenses the project under an open source license.
there are over 80 variations of open source licenses all with different term and conditions. Some are more permissive, some less so. Yet they can all be considered a variation of open source, though I’m anticipating you wouldn’t agree?
There are many open source licenses, and many non-open-source licenses. there is a list of licenses which OSI has analyzed and found to meet their definition; licenses which aren’t on that list can be open source too… but to see if they are, you would need to read the license and the definition.
I can’t understand why you are acting like the definition police here, it seems very pedantic tbh.
It’s because (1) FUTO are deceiving their customers by claiming that their product is something which it isn’t, and (2) they’re harming the free and open source software movements by telling people that terms mean things contrary to what they actually mean.
since you copy+pasted this wall of confused text to me in 3 different places I guess I’ll reply here too, in the not-deleted thread: opensource.org/authority/ (this is not even a controversial topic)
It isn’t about the list of approved licenses, it’s about the criteria for being added to the list. New licenses regularly meet the definition. This license clearly does not.
I can understand why someone would say open source
I can understand why too: it’s either because they were not aware of the widely agreed-upon definition of the term, or because they’re being disingenuous. I’m assuming it was the former; whether OP edits the post will reveal if it was actually the latter.
i guess you didn’t click the link in my comment? here is another, with a list of governments and other entities who all agree about the definition: opensource.org/authority/
The Lemmy software is intended to be somewhat censorship resistant, but that does not mean that lemmy.ml is a “free speech platform”.
Like most instances, lemmy.ml has rules (they’re in the sidebar on the front page) and we regularly delete posts and comments which violate them.
That instance you’re talking about is intended to be a “free speech platform”, which in modern internet parlance is a synonym for “nazi bar”. One of the two admins of that instance says explicitly: “racism, bigotry, sexism is allowed".
Most Lemmy users aren’t into racism, bigotry, sexism, and the other things people there are into, so, most Lemmy instances have defederated them.
As a new member of the lemmy.ml admin team I’ve also been removing a lot of posts from here which belong in lemmy_support, which I think is worthwhile for preventing this community from becoming a boring list of support questions.
To the many people who are flagging them: please read the examples above and don’t flag every post that is about lemmy; only flag ones that are actually concrete support questions. And do feel free to actually answer these questions before flagging them, so that the person asking doesn’t necessarily need to re-post it.